The notion that BB has recently suffered some sort of subtle kind of brain damage when it comes to coaching strikes me as absurd and one promoted by those who would rather believe this is the case than a perhaps uglier truth; the Pats havent drafted well in recent years. While there have been a few 'steals'---i.e Vollmer and Edleman, [ and, of course, Mayo has proven to be a bulletproof choice] they have poured a great deal of atention into the secondary with very sketchy results and, simultaneouly, paid too little attention to rebuilding a pass rush.

The notion that Pioli's Drafts were strong and BB's are weak is also absurd.

Lets name them;

BB's

1) Bultler (nickel back) Bodden injury is shedding bad light on this kid he is a great third starter2) Brace (Starter) Looked great to me in the pre season 2 sacks a forced fumble 12 tackle in two games.... Give me a break3) Vollmer; Beast4) Pryor; Value found in the 6th round5) Ornhburger; Practice squad guy but he is developing, great pulling guard no so great in pass protection; signing a RB next year and changing our run:pass ratio may make him more valuable than you think6) Edleman; Beast7) Tate; Beast - i would give him mosses slot next year and spend that 10 million on the defense; go back to what made us the best; we have plenty of weapons for Brady ESPECIALLY if Ingram is Drafted! 8) Chung; Beast 9) Spikes; Beast10) McCourty; Beast11) Gronkowski; Beast12) Hernandez; Beast x 213) Deaderick; quality 7th rounder on the depth chart14) Larson; another quality pick on the depth chart15) Cunningham; Promissing

The notion that Pioli's Drafts were strong and BB's are weak is also absurd. Lets name them; BB's 1) Bultler (nickel back) Bodden injury is shedding bad light on this kid he is a great third starter 2) Brace (Starter) Looked great to me in the pre season 2 sacks a forced fumble 12 tackle in two games.... Give me a break 3) Vollmer; Beast 4) Pryor; Value found in the 6th round 5) Ornhburger; Practice squad guy but he is developing, great pulling guard no so great in pass protection; signing a RB next year and changing our run:pass ratio may make him more valuable than you think 6) Edleman; Beast 7) Tate; Beast - i would give him mosses slot next year and spend that 10 million on the defense; go back to what made us the best; we have plenty of weapons for Brady ESPECIALLY if Ingram is Drafted! 8) Chung; Beast 9) Spikes; Beast 10) McCourty; Beast 11) Gronkowski; Beast 12) Hernandez; Beast x 2 13) Deaderick; quality 7th rounder on the depth chart 14) Larson; another quality pick on the depth chart 15) Cunningham; Promissing From 2002 to 2006 we absolutlely BLEW it but that was Pioli. If you want to call out someone on the drafts go post on KC's boardPosted by tagandtrade

In Pioli's defense, and reading much about his time in New England, Bill Belichick had the final say as to who the Patriots picks were.Pioli’s skills as a talent evaluator helped create a consistent championship contender in New England.[1] He was regularly recognized for his ability to build a team, not simply collecting individual talent,[1] helping to make the Patriots a "model franchise."[1] From 2000–2008, the Patriots had an NFL-best record of 102-42 (.708) and registered 14 playoff victories.[1] Pioli worked in close coordination with Belichick, bringing players to the Patriots who fit into the framework of the club’s team concept.[1] Pioli and Belichick's teams were noted for the depth of talent at all the positions[1] and used an effective combination of draft picks, free-agent signings, and trades to continually upgrade their roster.[1] The most-notable selection in an NFL Draft by Pioli and Belichick was quarterback Tom Brady, who was chosen 199th overall in the 2000 NFL Draft.[1]

To say pioli is weak is not really true, seeing what he is building in KC shows his viewing of talent is pretty dammmmm good.

Thank God Pioli is gone.....he was horrible at drafting!Posted by m1023us

Again, you ar ewrong, the FINAL say over any player drafted was Bill Belichicks, read up so you know what your talking about. Pioli only evaluated talent and brought it to Belichick, Belichick had the final say on who came to the Patriots.You can giv eBelichick all the pats on the back you like, but the Patriots have too many holes and no end in sight, while KC is on the rise.

I disagree completely, why pay college and pro scouts to collect data if your going to pitch it and make your own judgement. Pioli did the shopping he sent the scouts out they collected the data and BB's assitance like Scar had there say as well. When all is said and done BB does what any good GM would he gathers all the information and the parties that collected it and aligns and grades his draft board based ON ALL the data. You make it seem like this guy is a magician and he is pulling a rabbit out of a hat. There is only one way BB is at fault for Pioli's drafts! He hired Pioli, the player personnell staff all the scouts and so on. So yes he made a mistake on those drafts he thought he could trust his team of scouts, assisstant and coaches to give him an unbiased opinion after collecting all the data. It was bad DataPosted by tagandtrade

Wow now you show why you are wrong. Data, is data, they are facts gathered nothing more. Are yo ugoing to tell us next that Pioli made up stuff about people .....please dude get your head straight. That would be like saying is Michael ANgelo made a bad painting it woudl be because the people brought him the wrong color paint.Bill Belichick is THE evaluator with THE final say period! it doesnt matter if your mother and father tell you , hey this girl right here and that one right there are good for you, its YOU (Belichick that makes the decesion as to who he picks)You are another fan that cant and wont say Bill is making a bad choice, no you have to use a scape goat and blame someone else lol. So sad really.WEll we wil;l just have to wait and see how KC does and how the Pats do personel wise, I wondeer who you will blame next?

I disagree completely, why pay college and pro scouts to collect data if your going to pitch it and make your own judgement. Pioli did the shopping he sent the scouts out they collected the data and BB's assitance like Scar had there say as well. When all is said and done BB does what any good GM would he gathers all the information and the parties that collected it and aligns and grades his draft board based ON ALL the data. You make it seem like this guy is a magician and he is pulling a rabbit out of a hat. There is only one way BB is at fault for Pioli's drafts! He hired Pioli, the player personnell staff all the scouts and so on. So yes he made a mistake on those drafts he thought he could trust his team of scouts, assisstant and coaches to give him an unbiased opinion after collecting all the data. It was bad DataPosted by tagandtrade

and one other thing. your now saying that Bill B never looked, never did his own evaluation of these draft picks. He only took the scouts and Pioli's word, so what yoru saying is Pioli ran the team at that time and Bill just sat in the chair making any and all decesions on what Pioli said......Wow, do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Jerry your a moron did i say that no! I said BB hired people to collect information and keep him informed about the draft and that they all collaborated about the pick before BB put his stamp on the guy they deamed appropriate for that draft pick.

In Response to Re: its not coaching.....its the weak drafts : In Pioli's defense, and reading much about his time in New England, Bill Belichick had the final say as to who the Patriots picks were. Pioli’s skills as a talent evaluator helped create a consistent championship contender in New England. [ 1 ] He was regularly recognized for his ability to build a team, not simply collecting individual talent, [ 1 ] helping to make the Patriots a "model franchise." [ 1 ] From 2000–2008, the Patriots had an NFL-best record of 102-42 (.708) and registered 14 playoff victories. [ 1 ] Pioli worked in close coordination with Belichick, bringing players to the Patriots who fit into the framework of the club’s team concept . [ 1 ] Pioli and Belichick's teams were noted for the depth of talent at all the positions [ 1 ] and used an effective combination of draft picks, free-agent signings, and trades to continually upgrade their roster. [ 1 ] The most-notable selection in an NFL Draft by Pioli and Belichick was quarterback Tom Brady , who was chosen 199th overall in the 2000 NFL Draft . [ 1 ] To say pioli is weak is not really true, seeing what he is building in KC shows his viewing of talent is pretty dammmmm good.Posted by JerrySpringer

Second year Butler should have been improved from last year but was a disaster last week. I wonder if some player stomped on his foot or something. The same for Sebastian Vollmer who is supposedly a pro bowl candidate, and Dan Koppen too.

I thought it was a mistake then and I know it was a mistake now he's had 6 sacks already after 2 games that's phenomenal.

How and why could BB have made such a terrible horrible mistake. I duno, in trading back and taking Butler I think we left so many great players behind last years first round was much better than our front office thought

Jerry your a moron did i say that no! I said BB hired people to collect information and keep him informed about the draft and that they all collaborated about the pick before BB put his stamp on the guy they deamed appropriate for that draft pick. Learn how to readPosted by tagandtrade

Looks like you should learn to read what your write there genius, here is what you wrote,(So yes he made a mistake on those drafts he thought he could trust his team of scouts, assisstant and coaches to give him an unbiased opinion after collecting all the data. It was bad Data)

Now MORON, you said Pioli and his assistant's gave Bill B bad DATA! And Bill B made HIS decisions based on those facts.I love how a simple stooge like you write's something, then when questioned pulls out like a scalded dawg and runs from what they said.Once again pukebag, learn how to understand what you write before you write it. Now go change your pad princess, you are having a heavy flow day!

5 words why we are possibly not superbowl ready, Darius Butler over Clay Matthews I thought it was a mistake then and I know it was a mistake now he's had 6 sacks already after 2 games that's phenomenal. How and why could BB have made such a terrible horrible mistake. I duno, in trading back and taking Butler I think we left so many great players behind last years first round was much better than our front office thoughtPosted by danemcmenamin

Actually, it's the Chung pick that you would be talking about. I don't remember anybody on this board clammering that we blew it on passing on Matthews until Matthews started getting his sacks at the end of last season. The Bill was the idiot and how could he have blown it. Well, nobody on this board said anything thing about this guy during the draft. If they did he was a far 2nd choice behind Maualuga. I don't hear too many people complaining about not picking him up now.

The notion that BB has recently suffered some sort of subtle kind of brain damage when it comes to coaching strikes me as absurd and one promoted by those who would rather believe this is the case than a perhaps uglier truth; the Pats havent drafted well in recent years. While there have been a few 'steals'---i.e Vollmer and Edleman, [ and, of course, Mayo has proven to be a bulletproof choice] they have poured a great deal of atention into the secondary with very sketchy results and, simultaneouly, paid too little attention to rebuilding a pass rush.Posted by kingliar

It's called youth which translates into inexperience. There are going to be days when they play great and days when things go bad. Rookies don't know how to get over a bad play like the old pro does.

On the drafts I believed they needed to pay attention to the DBs. I'm sure that a pass rushing OLB is on the to do list but one has to be pretty careful and selective here. The Pats chose Cunningham and there is going to be a transition period. After all, there are only so many draft picks and the D did have more than one hole to fill from last year. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will this defense.

The Pats lost two guys on defense to injury, Bodden and Ty Warren. That's going to hurt. That's going to have an impact. You not only lost just two outstanding players you lost leadership and experience.

((Wow now you show why you are wrong. Data, is data, they are facts gathered nothing more. Are yo ugoing to tell us next that Pioli made up stuff about people .....please dude get your head straight.))

That is not what I said... I said the personnell departments (college, pro and abroad) that worked for Pioli collected the data.

Also, i said they collaborate to form an unbiased pick.

DATA IS ALL THEY HAVE TO FORM THERE OPINION!

film, statistics, meetings, chalk board talk, interviews the combine ALL this is DATA!

And get this straight BB cannot read it all he relies on that department heavily.

You people that think BB does it all and does not run this machine like a corporation are definitely wrong.

II am not arguing that Bill B is incredible or horrible at drafting, I am saying that until someone puts the data together and evaluates it, you're talking out of your *Posted by batou

Batou is absolutely right. Evaluating and comparing different teams' drafts accurately would require a fairly sophisticated analysis that I doubt any of us is prepared to conduct. What is evident is that building and maintaining an "elite" football team is no simple task. To field a top team, you probably need to have a core of 30 to 40 players who are average or better than average at their positions. Some percentage of this core needs to be well above average--true star quality players. You will have a certain amount of turnover in these core positions each year--probably losing between 10% and 20% of these players (3 to 8 players) annually. Replacing 3 to 8 players with average to well-above-average talent is no easy task. Teams have (on average) 8 draft picks and invite an additional 15 or so rookies to their training camps as free agents. There is no sure bet that any of the rookies brought in will pan out. Judging by things like number of starts and Pro Bowl appearances of drafted players, the odds of getting truly good talent drop pretty quickly toward the bottom of the first round of the draft and get pretty slim by the third or fourth round. Even first round talent isn't guaranteed to work out, however--the odds of getting a good player in the first round are definitely higher than in lower rounds--but they're still not close to 100%. Teams can sign veteran free agents as well, but often doing so requires sacrificing draft picks. Plus there's a salary cap that needs to be factored in. Given the high salary-cap cost of first-round picks and many free agent signings, first-round picks and free agent signings can be highly risky for a team. And then there's the complicating factor that good teams have lower picks, so they are disadvantaged as they try to maintain talent. Add to that the vagaries of injuries and a team's particular strengths and weakness at various positions (which may be uneven and may not match the talent available in the draft and free agency) and you get an extremely complex problem.

It seems to me that the Patriots approach to the problem has been to try to maximize picks in the middle rounds. They probably feel that this maximizes their odds of getting the right quantity of average to above-average talent. If they instead tried to maximize their high-round picks, the odds of them getting top talent with each pick would increase, but they might not be able to bring in enough players to preserve that 30 to 40 player core. Plus they'd be more likely to be constrained by salary cap problems. Like every fan, I sometimes wonder if the Pats' strategy is really best--and wish they went for more first-round talent--but I understand the complexities of the challenge they face and really can't say that they are doing the wrong thing. In fact, they seem to have kept the team very competitive for a decade, which is an extremely rare feat. If they get back to the AFC championship or Super Bowl once or twice more in the next five or so years, I think their talent-acquisition strategy will have proven itself an extraordinary success. If they fade into obscurity, however, then maybe they will be shown to have done the wrong thing.

Unless we can do the complex statistical analysis, however, we'll just have to wait and see.

In Response to Re: its not coaching.....its the weak drafts : Batou is absolutely right. Evaluating and comparing different teams' drafts accurately would require a fairly sophisticated analysis that I doubt any of us is prepared to conduct. What is evident is that building and maintaining an "elite" football team is no simple task. To field a top team, you probably need to have a core of 30 to 40 players who are average or better than average at their positions. Some percentage of this core needs to be well above average--true star quality players. You will have a certain amount of turnover in these core positions each year--probably losing between 10% and 20% of these players (3 to 8 players) annually. Replacing 3 to 8 players with average to well-above-average talent is no easy task. Teams have (on average) 8 draft picks and invite an additional 15 or so rookies to their training camps as free agents. There is no sure bet that any of the rookies brought in will pan out. Judging by things like number of starts and Pro Bowl appearances of drafted players, the odds of getting truly good talent drop pretty quickly toward the bottom of the first round of the draft and get pretty slim by the third or fourth round. Even first round talent isn't guaranteed to work out, however--the odds of getting a good player in the first round are definitely higher than in lower rounds--but they're still not close to 100%. Teams can sign veteran free agents as well, but often doing so requires sacrificing draft picks. Plus there's a salary cap that needs to be factored in. Given the high salary-cap cost of first-round picks and many free agent signings, first-round picks and free agent signings can be highly risky for a team. And then there's the complicating factor that good teams have lower picks, so they are disadvantaged as they try to maintain talent. Add to that the vagaries of injuries and a team's particular strengths and weakness at various positions (which may be uneven and may not match the talent available in the draft and free agency) and you get an extremely complex problem. It seems to me that the Patriots approach to the problem has been to try to maximize picks in the middle rounds. They probably feel that this maximizes their odds of getting the right quantity of average to above-average talent. If they instead tried to maximize their high-round picks, the odds of them getting top talent with each pick would increase, but they might not be able to bring in enough players to preserve that 30 to 40 player core. Plus they'd be more likely to be constrained by salary cap problems. Like every fan, I sometimes wonder if the Pats' strategy is really best--and wish they went for more first-round talent--but I understand the complexities of the challenge they face and really can't say that they are doing the wrong thing. In fact, they seem to have kept the team very competitive for a decade, which is an extremely rare feat. If they get back to the AFC championship or Super Bowl once or twice more in the next five or so years, I think their talent-acquisition strategy will have proven itself an extraordinary success. If they fade into obscurity, however, then maybe they will be shown to have done the wrong thing. Unless we can do the complex statistical analysis, however, we'll just have to wait and see. Posted by prolate0spheroid

This post absolutely hits the point. Armchair GMs like to second guess all the time and say "I would've drafted that guy". And to say the Pats' drafting record is shoddy means that you've done the research to see what the rest of the leauge has done relative to the Patriots in past drafts? I doubt it. If you have, please show us your research and we'd love to see it.

Some of you guys give up on players way too early. See Ron Brace and Pat Chung for recent examples. But guess what? The draft is a crapshoot anyway, and if you're getting a starter or two and a reserve player you're doing pretty well. It's like some of you expect every draft pick to be a pro bowler regardless of draft position.

But--THE best barometerto determining success of past drafts has been the sustained competitiveness of this team for a decade. The Patriots have missed the playoffs twice, and once with an 11-5 record. For all you draftniks and naysayers, that should be all the proof you need that this program is in competent hands. The issue is that the superbowl success has gone right to the heads of some fans and the success of the season is now based on winning the superbowl. It's great to have lofty goals but the sense to realize that every year can't be a superbowl win would do some of you a lot of good.